Home | 
> poll: majority Israelis and Palestinians want the "Clinton Plan" borders ?
http://www.israelforum.com/board/sho...&postcount=478
Maybe not. In either case, am I the only person who finds it odd that it's against the law to call someone a Nazi, referring of course to events 60+ years ago while it is entirely acceptable, encouraged even to elect people to your government who openly call for its destruction?
Medio
I share your frustration and it is even more galling because despite it all, the self righteous hypocrites accuse Israel of practicing apartheid and racism! What can one say............
a third of the world has gone nuts, a third are totally brainwashed automatons who allow their ruthless leaders to lead them down the garden path and blame America and the Jews for it and only about a third have a semblance of a grip on reality. That's just the way it is. All we can do is keep plugging away and hope that humanity will regain a some sanity, hopefully in our lifetime.
Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem.
Author: John Galsworthy 1867-1933, British Novelist, Playwright
Huh?Originally Posted by Reffo
They simply report his views. I think it takes a rather naive view to assert that because something is reported in the news, it is necessarily true. If this was the case, Iraq would have been replete with WMD.Here is a link to a BBC article about him, I think you may agree with me that they are not exactly Zionists and I don't think they would let themselves be fooled by Zionist propaganda:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3430077.stm
No re-reading required. It’s simply a fallacious argument., based on strained assumptions.
The primary issue is one of a continued occupation and the subordination of one group of people by another. The suggestion that if the Palestinians engaged in a bit of self-criticism, we’ll be able to proceed to a peaceful settlement. , is farcical. The need for building up trust and constructive relationships across the national divide is indisputable, but this is not a pre-condition to a just political settlement.
You seem to prefer to focus on a background element of the overall picture and ignore the elephant in the living room.
Well, my opionion, on those is;Well, you certainly said some of it and I had a strong impression that you intimated th rest. However, by all means, if I am wrong then I will apologise if you just tell me if you disagree with any or all of the above items.
- No.
- No.
- No.
- No.
- That wouldn’t be a massive sweeping statement would it? All of them? No.
Just most of it.Again, please feel free to tell me if I got any of the above wrong.
Occupation. Rights. Funny that the PLO formed before the 6 day war. Funny that there was no complaint of Jordanian "occupation" by the Arabs in the Western Portion of the former Palestine Mandate. Funny that the war against Partition Israel had nothing to do with occupation (its arab citizens would have the vote). Even funnier that now, Arabs in the portions of Jerusalem planned to be outside of the fence are suing to make sure that they are on the Israeli side, so terrible is their occupation, while when Israel float the idea of transfering sovereignty over Arab towns to a new Pal Arab state to compensate for lands to be annexed by Israel, the Arab residents of the land which is to have a sovereignty swap organize furious opposition.
"Occupation" and "Rights" are red Herrings. Its about the existence of Israel -the opposition of which is an outgrowth of Arab pride combined with Islamist impusles which manifest themselves either in secular pan Arabism or religious jihadism.
The principle problem here is the Arab rejection of Israel's right to exist, and the refusal of Arabs to take responsibility for their attempted genocides. No one in their right mind believes that when Israel hands over the WB and Gaza that the war will end - no matter how much is handed over. Its not about the occupation - its about another Arab attempt at imperialism and genocide.
No, you are right, but isn't it funny that did not seem to be your attitude when we were discussing media bias in another thread.They simply report his views. I think it takes a rather naive view to assert that because something is reported in the news, it is necessarily true. If this was the case, Iraq would have been replete with WMD.
The other thing that is interesting is that you accused me of having a "closed mind" just because I don't swallow the revisionist ramblings of leftist pseudo historians. Now just look at you, not only do you refuse to believe what Walid Shoebat says but you are even in denial mode about his very existence. As I said, you make the saying: "The pot calling the kettle black", a truism
Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem.
Author: John Galsworthy 1867-1933, British Novelist, Playwright
Wow Sumud, you are a barrel of surprises. I could have sworn that you actually said virtually the opposite to what you say now for items 4 and 5 above, in our other discussions on other threads. And you intimated items 1,2 and 3 even in this thread by your concurrence with Dr Sarraj that there is only a need for Israel to apologise for past wrong doings but it's not important for Palestinians to do likewise.What about your obsession of reality that:
- Palestinians are the ONLY wronged victims
- Palestinians/Arabs did not start any wars, not even in 1947/48
- Egypt and Syria were not the ones who were responsible for the 1967 war
- It is wrong for Israel to retaliate against indiscriminate terrorism against it's civilians.
- Even though the Arabs/Palestinians openly and publicly threatened to drive the Jews into the sea (in other words: Commit Genocide), they did not mean this and it's just Jewish paranoia.
Well, you certainly said some of it and I had a strong impression that you intimated th rest. However, by all means, if I am wrong then I will apologise if you just tell me if you disagree with any or all of the above items.
However, I did promise to apologise if you tell me that I was wrong and since you admitted that the Palestinians/Arabs have done many wrong things, I do apologise to you.
Now, for the sake of consistency and logic, I think you should be ready to agree with me that:
- There is room for self criticism among Palestinians for their treatment and wrongs that they committed against Israelis, yet there is not much evidence that your admissions above are tolerated by Palestinian society in the WB and Gaza
- If Israelis need to apologise for their wrong doings, so do the Palestinians
Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem.
Author: John Galsworthy 1867-1933, British Novelist, Playwright
"the revisionist ramblings of leftist pseudo historians" roughly equates to the concensus of serious scholarship on the history of Israel-Palestine.
This is a serious flaw in your argument as I've pointed out from the start - that these considered opinions are no more than a partisan view point, because there is no objective ruth, just a relative truth that lies somewhere near the midway point between extremes.
Am I in "denial" about the existence of Walid Shoebat????
This is very strange. There is no question of "denial", as there is no 'Walid Shoebat' - it's an assumed name.
Does the man using this name exist? - of course. Does he hold the opinions he states? - no doubt.
While you've talked about the necessity of recognition and self-examination, 'Shoebat' is an example of just the opposite. His Christian fundamentalist views are popular with a certian audience becuase he tells them that- all Palestinians hate and want to kill Jews, there should be no Palestinian state and that Israel has done nothing wrong, it's all the fault of the Palestinians.
His views, which contain blatant flasehoods and distortions, you seem to recommend as part of a constructive dialogue. Worse still, in your post you seem to be (inadvertantly I hope) juxtaposing him with serious scholars. This would be relativism gone mad.
Your assumptions and simplistic notions keep getting you into difficulty.
Sumud
I am not hung up about Walid. But you also discounted people like Irshad Manji, Brigitte Gabriel and Nonnie Darwish, even though they are Muslim and/or Arab and their opinions and views definitely have relevance. Walid Shoebat's views (a Palestinian) too should have relevance although I don't expect you to agree with all their views. In fact, their views may or may not even be correct, the fact is that these views actually exist, these views are not figments of my imagination and they are not expressed by people from a group who could be accused of being biased against Palestinians. So, my contention is that such views (right or wrong) are LIKELY to exist among a small minority of Palestinians in the WB and/or Gaza. So why can't we hear about it?
Your contention is that such views are illogical therefore they cannot exist. That's what I am challenging. If you just said that THEY DON't exist, I would just disagree with you but we could not continue to argue about it because neither one of us could prove the other wrong, unless of course such views would actually be found in the WB and Gaza.
Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem.
Author: John Galsworthy 1867-1933, British Novelist, Playwright
That's a very smug statement from you. But a logical rebuttal from you would be more convincing.
Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem.
Author: John Galsworthy 1867-1933, British Novelist, Playwright
As posted in another thread, Benny Morris's "serious scholarship" has been ripped to shreds by legitimate historians. And he's the best out of all of the "new historians."
The point, I think, though is that Sumud, and others like him, will not move from the Arab narrative, and thus from the notion that Israel has no right to exist. Thus war with like minded people is pretty much ensured in perpetuity. That understanding needs to guide Israeli and Western thought. If it does, well, then maybe these thinkers will have tactics used on them, and those that they care about, which are closer to the tactics they condone or support against their enemies.
Actually, in all fairness, in his post 484, Sumud did surprise me by making quite a few admissions that the Palestinians too have a good share of the guilt for the current mess.
Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem.
Author: John Galsworthy 1867-1933, British Novelist, Playwright
Maybe.
But then he quickly seemed to back off. Ask for specifics... or was it just lip service to not seem like an extremist?
Well, let's keep an open mind and see how he continues. I just thought you should be aware of what he said, so I pointed it out to you.
Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem.
Author: John Galsworthy 1867-1933, British Novelist, Playwright
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks